IL: Registered sex offenders can stay at Wayside Cross a little longer after ruling again delayed

[ – 1/21/20]

The child sex offenders living at Wayside Cross in Aurora can remain at the ministry for at least a while longer, after a judge again delayed ruling on their request to temporarily block enforcement of a sex offender residency law pending the outcome of a lawsuit.

The Wayside Cross residents are seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, which would allow them to remain at the ministry until their lawsuit challenging enforcement of a sex offender residency law is resolved. Kane County Circuit Court Judge Kevin Busch declined to rule on the restraining order and injunction Tuesday, saying he needed additional time to review several cases attorneys referenced during the hearing.

Read the full article


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  4. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Use person-first language.
  5. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  6. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  7. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  8. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  9. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  10. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  11. Please do not post in all Caps.
  12. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  13. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  14. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  15. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  16. Please do not solicit funds
  17. No discussions about weapons
  18. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  19. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  20. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  21. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  22. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Notice the reporter overlooked that the whole mess at Wayside started because a convicted murderer moved there. Not one word about trying to get rid of him…

The story reads like the judge is desperately trying to find a way to rule against the affected registrants. Seems to me that doing so would be pretty pointless, considering the first suit in federal court covering the same complaints and issues was near certain to be ruled in the registrants’ favor. Even if the city does prevail here, I’m pretty sure it would be overturned on appeal.

The term “child sex offender” was used nine times in this article. I guess since the title stated “Registered sex offenders” as usual it is assumed by the uneducated in these matters that all “Registered sex offenders” are “child sex offenders”.